HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS		QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced] Author: Keyword(s): Year:  Vol:  Page:

This Article Abstract Full Text Full Text (PDF) Services Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in ISI Web of Science Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via ISI Web of Science (114) Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by De Munck, J. Articles by Van Meerbeek, B. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by De Munck, J. Articles by Van Meerbeek, B.

A Critical Review of the Durability of Adhesion to Tooth Tissue: Methods and Results

¹ Leuven BIOMAT Research Cluster, Department of Conservative Dentistry, School of Dentistry, Oral Pathology and Maxillo-Facial Surgery, Catholic University of Leuven, Kapucijnenvoer 7, B-3000 Leuven, Belgium; and
² Department TEWO, Laboratory of Dental Materials, University of Antwerp-RUCA, Groenenborgerlaan 171, B-2020 Antwerpen, Belgium;

View larger version (33K): [in a new window]   Figure 1. Classification of contemporary adhesives following adhesion strategy and number of clinical application steps. Gi = glass ionomer; PAA = polyalkenoic acid.

View larger version (53K): [in a new window]   Figure 2. Schematic presenting the experimental design of micro-tensile bond strength testing.

View larger version (10K): [in a new window]   Figure 3. Pooled in-house µTBS data. (a) Statistical analysis of pooled enamel µTBS data per adhesive class, as gathered at the Leuven BIOMAT research cluster during the period 2001–2004, always using the same experimental protocol (Fig. 2). The central circle/rectangle represents the mean value, and vertical bars denote 95% confidence intervals. Adhesive classes in which the µTBS was not significantly different are connected by a horizontal line. (b) Statistical analysis of pooled dentin µTBS data per adhesive class, as gathered at the Leuven BIOMAT research cluster during the period 2001–2004, always using the same experimental protocol (Fig. 2). The central circle/rectangle represents the mean value, and vertical bars denote 95% confidence intervals. Adhesive classes in which the µTBS was not significantly different are connected by a horizontal line.

View larger version (27K): [in a new window]   Figure 4. Working principle of the micro-rotary fatigue resistance (µRFR) test set-up. (a) A small rectangular beam with a rounded constriction at the tooth-biomaterial interface (diameter, 1.2 mm) is prepared by means of a diamond saw and a lathe. At a fixed distance of 12.5 mm from the interface (l = lever arm), a load (F) is applied, while the tooth part of the specimen is still clamped in the chuck of the lathe. Maximal stress (tension) is induced at the upper part of the interface (•). (b) When the specimen is rotated around its main axis, the outer layer of the interface (•) is subjected to sinusoidal tension-compression cycles (S = stress).

View larger version (160K): [in a new window]   Figure 5. TEM photomicrograph showing the silver tracer penetration within an adhesive interface prepared with an experimental mild, one-step self-etch adhesive (acetone/water-based adhesive, containing HEMA and a carboxyl- and a phosphate-based functional monomer; GC, Japan). Tiny silver particles are scattered throughout the hybrid layer (white hand pointer) and the adhesive resin. Note also the nanofiller in the adhesive resin (black hand pointer).